There are many different understandings that people have out there of what it means to be emerging. Because of this, I usually shy away from the term in favor of missional, even though that might be less descriptive as a whole. However, I resonate with the characterisitics he describes in the article. If these were how people understood the emerging church as a whole, I would welcome the label.
Being defined as an emerging church should less be defined as what your church community doesn’t have (ie formal leadership, worship services, buildings, organs, contemporary worship, structure, republicans) or does have (house churches, candles, bivocational pastors, democrats). Instead, it should be defined as what your church community is trying to be. The methods you use don’t matter as much as the what your community is striving to accomplish. (Obviously if the methods get in the way of what you are trying to become, that is another matter.)
Though he almost seems to think his article is too simplistic (thin is the word he uses), I think Doug Pagitt has captured the heart of what being an emerging church should be.